The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe

J

jacob navia

The committee has decided, for reasons unknown to me (there is no
explanation why is this necessary anywhere) to go on with the flawed
Dinkum library specs and proclaim that library as the new standard specs
for the whole language, what will surely please Plauger but leaves the
rest of us with a pile of errors.

I posted in this group on June 8th, 2009, a detailed critique of that
library. Two years later all the original errors are there, together
with new ones. I will repost again then, the most glaring errors with
the hope that the committee corrects them before is too late and stops
this whole idea.

1) The specs use concepts from C++ without furnishing the slightest
explanation of how those concepts should be understood within the C
language.

Examples:
--------
7.25.1.3
TSS_DTOR_ITERATIONS
which expands to an integer constant expression representing the
maximum number of times that destructors will be called when a
thread terminates.

The committee thinks apparently that the term "destructors" is
common in C so that doesn't need any definition or explanation of what
that should be in the context of the C language. The term doesn't even
appear in the index nor is explained anywhere.


7.25.1.4
cnd_t
which is a complete object type that holds an identifier for a
condition variable;

How can a type "hold an identifier" ??? The committee defines in
6.4.2.1.2 an identifier as a sequence of letters that designates
one or more entities.
Now, we have the opposite: a type holds an identifier and nowhere
is explained what that should mean!

2) The proposed functions are absurd.

Take, for instance, nothing less than the thread creation function
thrd_create:

int thrd_create(thrd_t *thr, thrd_start_t func,void *arg);

As you can see, there are *no arguments that can be passed to the
underlying operating system* to further specify the newly created
thread. (The "args" arument is an argument for the thread).

The pthreads standard (POSIX) proposes an "attributes" argument. The
Microsoft threads propose a "security attributes" and a set of flags
that further specify the newly created thread. The C API proposes
NOTHING so it is impossible to use.

Since there is no way to specify the attributes, this function MUST
use the default attributes that are NOWHERE specified. This means
that two compiler systems could very well produce two different sets
of attributes to be passed to the underlying thread creation
functions so that we would have a differnt behavior for the same
source compiled in the same machine. This is completely ridiculous!

The mutex creation functions do not specify any security/ownership
specifications either.
Anybody can use anything. This will force all
developers that run in a security sensitive environment to reject
this specs. C stayed in the single user era.

The specifications are completely unusable in many other functions:
For instance:
The thrd_detach function tells the operating system to dispose of
any resources allocated to the thread identified by thr when that
thread terminates.

That's new to me. The OS should free all memory allocated by the
thread? Close all files? This is highly system dependent and
many systems could very well not do the cleanup until the process
that created those ressources stops.

3) New types are defined without any specification.
Example:
-------
The "xtime" data type is defined as
struct xtime { time_t sec; long nanoseconds; };

What is the epoch of the "sec" member? Nobody knows. When you call
a function using an "xtime" as argument with
(struct xtime) {5,0}
means:
A)
I call this function with a timeout of five seconds, i.e. the "sec"
epoch starts running at the instant of function call.

B)
I call it with a timeout of January first 1970 and five seconds,
i.e. since the "sec" member is a time_t and time_t variables are
used to store CALENDAR TIMES (as per difftime specs in 7.26.2.1)
I specify a timeout that has already expired.

Nowhere in the standard is the "xtime" explained or further described.
The committee supposes that it suffices to name a member "sec" for
its meaning to be crystal clear.

I fear that is not the case.


4) The new types aren't connected to the rest of the language.

How do you convert an "xtime" into a character string?
Does strftime accept the new type?
Note that nowhere was specified that time_t shuld be in seconds
since the creation of the language. Now, the committee decides
that time_t is in seconds without giving any second thoughts
to this change. There is a CLOCKS_PER_SEC macro defined in the
standard a few pages after this specs. Is that obsolete?
Should we divide the "sec" member by CLOCKS_PER_SECOND to
obtain the actual seconds?

Not a word of those problems, nothing. This would be comic
if it weren't so sad.


5) Error analysis is very difficult.

The proposed functions return the enum value "thrd_error" if
SOMETHING goes wrong. Impossible to know WHAT did go wrong since
nowhere is specified if errno should have a value set or how
to figure out WHAT HAPPENED!!! There is NO WAY that the running
program can communicate the reasons of failure so that we are
left in the dark as to why each error happens. The Microsoft API
specifies GetLastError() and pthreads have errno and other
mechanisms to further speicify what kind of error happened. This
specs ignore all that. It doesn't work, now go figure what happens
during HOURS of debugging!

I am repeating here in an expanded form the critique that I wrote
in comp.std.c in a message on June 8th 2009. There was no answer then,
and there has been no change since. ALl errors I pointed out then are
still in the specs.

I hope this time they will listen or at least justify what they are
doing. Copy/Paste of Plauger's library docs is not enough to specify
a change to the C language, excuse me.
 
J

Juha Niskanen

I am repeating here in an expanded form the critique that I wrote
in comp.std.c in a message on June 8th 2009. There was no answer then,
and there has been no change since. ALl errors I pointed out then are
still in the specs.

Hello Jacob,

Have you reviewed committee document N1570?
Wikipedia says this is the latest draft:

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf

I think some of your critique has been answered already. See also

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1571.pdf

where the committee "agreed in principle" to change struct xtime to
struct timespec and clarify its semantics to match POSIX more closely.
This change has been applied to N1570.
 
T

Todd Carnes

On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 12:33:48 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

[snip]
I posted in this group on June 8th, 2009, a detailed critique of that
library. Two years later all the original errors are there, together
with new ones. I will repost again then, the most glaring errors with
the hope that the committee corrects them before is too late and stops
this whole idea.

[snip]

I have no idea if you are right or wrong, and don't pretend to know, but
why would anyone on the standards committee care about one person's
postings on usenet? I doubt they read the newsgoups.

Todd
 
J

jacob navia

Le 07/07/11 16:36, christian.bau a écrit :
Another rant.

Just your point 2: C threads share memory. Since they share memory,
you can just about ignore security (there is none).


Ahh, OK. Both pthreads and Microsoft allow for attributes in their
create functions. OK. They are both wrong because Mr Christian Bau
says so.

The security attributes in Microsoft's version concern the inheritance
of the newly created thread handles: are they inherited by child
processes?

You have just shown us your ignorance.
For security, you
would need separate processes, and at that point it is really outside
the realm of C.

As far as I know "system()" creates a new process. But apparently you
think that is "outside the realm of C". OK then.
So having no "attributes" for thread creation is Ok
with me.

With you. Not with Microsoft windows or with pthreads.

And C threads wouldn't pass "default attributes" to some
underlying system, they just behave as defined by the C standard.

And you think they will not use the underlying operating system or
or what? The underlying OS implementations REQUIRE those parameters
so you HAVE to pass something in there.
So
if you encounter different behavior, then either one implementation is
non-conforming, or your expectations of thread behavior are wrong.

The standard doesn't say if the new thread starts suspended or not,
Compiler "A" starts the thread in a suspended state, compiler "B"
starts without suspension. Which is right?
Your comments on "thrd_detach" can only be interpreted as a deliberate
misunderstanding. Allocated memory and opened files are _not_
"resources allocated to the thread".

no? Then WHAT are those "ressources"? They aren't even specified!
They are allocated _by_ some
thread _to_ the whole application.

Depends on the OS.
 
J

jacob navia

Le 07/07/11 15:12, Todd Carnes a écrit :
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 12:33:48 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

[snip]
I posted in this group on June 8th, 2009, a detailed critique of that
library. Two years later all the original errors are there, together
with new ones. I will repost again then, the most glaring errors with
the hope that the committee corrects them before is too late and stops
this whole idea.

[snip]

I have no idea if you are right or wrong, and don't pretend to know, but
why would anyone on the standards committee care about one person's
postings on usenet? I doubt they read the newsgoups.

Todd

"They do not read anything, or care about anyone."

Is that what you want to say?

Maybe you are just wrong, and they do care about what the community
thinks or proposes.

Or maybe you are right, and they live in limbo. Time will tell.
 
J

Jens Gustedt

Am 07.07.2011 17:09, schrieb jacob navia:
You have just shown us your ignorance.

I don't think that bashing on people will bring your issue forward.
And you think they will not use the underlying operating system or
or what? The underlying OS implementations REQUIRE those parameters
so you HAVE to pass something in there.

Yes, certainly. An implementation of the C1x stuff has to provide the
right arguments to the OS implementation of threads, e.g if the the
underlying implementation is pthread, it has to set the attribute
argument properly, if the default for pthread is not conforming to
C1x. I don't see a particular difficulty in that one, it is the C1x
thrd implementation that has to provide these arguments.

You would be right in saying that this model is kind of restrictive,
allowing for only one execution model. In particular it is a pity that
it doesn't allow to start threads in a detached state.
The standard doesn't say if the new thread starts suspended or not,
Compiler "A" starts the thread in a suspended state, compiler "B"
starts without suspension. Which is right?

Hm, since it doesn't define the term "suspended state" and supension
of a thread is only done via a sleep function for a limited time, I
don't really understand your issue here.
no? Then WHAT are those "ressources"? They aren't even specified!

Here, a better wording would probably be appropriate. I think
injecting the word "specific" before "resources" would already be a
good disambiguation.


Jens
 
J

jacob navia

Le 07/07/11 18:00, Jens Gustedt a écrit :
Am 07.07.2011 17:09, schrieb jacob navia:

I don't think that bashing on people will bring your issue forward.

Well, he started his message with

"Another rant"

That's OK?

My tone was appropiate for his tone.

Yes, certainly. An implementation of the C1x stuff has to provide the
right arguments to the OS implementation of threads, e.g if the the
underlying implementation is pthread, it has to set the attribute
argument properly, if the default for pthread is not conforming to
C1x. I don't see a particular difficulty in that one, it is the C1x
thrd implementation that has to provide these arguments.

You would be right in saying that this model is kind of restrictive,
allowing for only one execution model. In particular it is a pity that
it doesn't allow to start threads in a detached state.

Are the threads visible to child processes? Microsoft requires a
"security attributes" parameter that defines if the thread is inherited
to child process or not. Compilar "A" under windows decides that the
threads aren't visible, compiler "B" decides that they are. Which is
right?
Hm, since it doesn't define the term "suspended state" and supension
of a thread is only done via a sleep function for a limited time, I
don't really understand your issue here.

A thread is suspended when the OS doesn't run it and doesn't schedule
it.
Here, a better wording would probably be appropriate. I think
injecting the word "specific" before "resources" would already be a
good disambiguation.

It should be clear from the specifications text what those ressources are.
 
W

Wojtek Lerch

On 07/07/2011 6:33 AM, jacob navia wrote:
....
2) The proposed functions are absurd.

Take, for instance, nothing less than the thread creation function
thrd_create:

int thrd_create(thrd_t *thr, thrd_start_t func,void *arg);

As you can see, there are *no arguments that can be passed to the
underlying operating system* to further specify the newly created
thread. (The "args" arument is an argument for the thread).

The pthreads standard (POSIX) proposes an "attributes" argument. The
Microsoft threads propose a "security attributes" and a set of flags
that further specify the newly created thread. The C API proposes
NOTHING so it is impossible to use.

Do you find fopen() absurd and impossible to use too? Or are file or
stream attributes (such as the POSIX permission bits, or O_EXCL) less
important to you than some of the thread attributes that POSIX or
Windows have?
 
M

Malcolm McLean

Do you find fopen() absurd and impossible to use too?  Or are file or
stream attributes (such as the POSIX permission bits, or O_EXCL) less
important to you than some of the thread attributes that POSIX or
Windows have?
If it's the only interface to the file system, you may have problems.
For instance you can't tell the size of a file, you can't scan a
directory, you can't set read or write permissions or flag it as a
temporary. You can't lock it from other processes.
 
W

Wojtek Lerch

If it's the only interface to the file system, you may have problems.

Or not, depending on what you're trying to do.
For instance you can't tell the size of a file, you can't scan a
directory, you can't set read or write permissions or flag it as a
temporary. You can't lock it from other processes.

Right; but if you do need to do any of those things, then you can't rely
on C99 alone. You need to lose some portability and rely on something
like POSIX or the Windows API or whatever. But that doesn't make
fopen() absurd or impossible to use -- a lot of code has been written
that happily uses fopen() without worrying about any of the fancy
OS-specific stuff.
 
C

Chad

Or not, depending on what you're trying to do.


Right; but if you do need to do any of those things, then you can't rely
on C99 alone.  You need to lose some portability and rely on something
like POSIX or the Windows API or whatever.  But that doesn't make
fopen() absurd or impossible to use -- a lot of code has been written
that happily uses fopen() without worrying about any of the fancy
OS-specific stuff.

I was under the impression that having something like fopen() (also)
work as an interface to a file system would make the function non-
portable.


Chad
 
A

Angel

I was under the impression that having something like fopen() (also)
work as an interface to a file system would make the function non-
portable.

The stream I/O functions cover the basic opening, reading, writing and
closing of files that nearly all file systems support. For many
purposes, this is enough. After all, reading and writing is the main
purpose of most files, yes?

It doesn't matter what is under the file. If the OS maps certain
functions to special files (like most Unix variants do for devices and
directories), it is potentially possible to interface with such things
by using the stream I/O functions. That doesn't make the stream I/O
functions themselves unportable.
 
C

Chad

The stream I/O functions cover the basic opening, reading, writing and
closing of files that nearly all file systems support. For many
purposes, this is enough. After all, reading and writing is the main
purpose of most files, yes?

It doesn't matter what is under the file. If the OS maps certain
functions to special files (like most Unix variants do for devices and
directories), it is potentially possible to interface with such things
by using the stream I/O functions. That doesn't make the stream I/O
functions themselves unportable.

For some reason that doesn't sound right. Maybe I'm wrong. Nothing
personal, but I'm going to wait for either Mr. Keith Thompson or Dr.
Eric Sosman give their input on this whole thing.
 
A

Angel

For some reason that doesn't sound right. Maybe I'm wrong. Nothing
personal, but I'm going to wait for either Mr. Keith Thompson or Dr.
Eric Sosman give their input on this whole thing.

Maybe I just don't understand your question or concerns, but what in
this program that writes data from stdin to the Unix null device is so
wrong that it makes fopen() non-portable?

It does just what stream I/O is supposed to do: open a file, write stuff
to it, and close it. That the file happens to be mapped to a device
doesn't change anything one bit, does it?


#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(void)
{
FILE *devnull = fopen("/dev/null", "w");
if (!devnull)
return EXIT_FAILURE;

int data;
while ((data = fgetc(stdin)) != EOF)
fputc(data, devnull);

fclose(devnull);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}


(Yes, I know, I don't test the return results of fputc() and fclose().
Since the (rather silly) purpose of this program is to discard data, I
didn't think it was important.)
 
M

Marcin Grzegorczyk

Replying selectively.

jacob said:
7.25.1.3
TSS_DTOR_ITERATIONS
which expands to an integer constant expression representing the
maximum number of times that destructors will be called when a
thread terminates.

The committee thinks apparently that the term "destructors" is
common in C so that doesn't need any definition or explanation of what
that should be in the context of the C language. The term doesn't even
appear in the index nor is explained anywhere.

Yes, a proper definition of that term is badly needed. From the current
text, it is not clear what TSS_DTOR_ITERATIONS really means, or what it
means for the `dtor` parameter of tss_create() to be null.
7.25.1.4
cnd_t
which is a complete object type that holds an identifier for a
condition variable;

How can a type "hold an identifier" ???

Yes, it is a wrong use of the term `identifier`, but that's an editorial
issue, IMHO. (Larry Jones, are you reading this?)

[...]
int thrd_create(thrd_t *thr, thrd_start_t func,void *arg);

As you can see, there are *no arguments that can be passed to the
underlying operating system* to further specify the newly created
thread. (The "args" arument is an argument for the thread).

As Wojtek Lerch already said in this thread, much the same could be said
about fopen(). Sure, one can bolt various extensions onto the fopen()
mode string, but one can equally well specify some sort of
set_attr_for_thrd_create() interface. Either way, it'll be a
nonstandard extension.

[...]
Since there is no way to specify the attributes, this function MUST
use the default attributes that are NOWHERE specified.

Because they're outside of the scope of the C standard.

[...]
The mutex creation functions do not specify any security/ownership
specifications either.

Same for <stdio.h> file access functions.

[...]
The thrd_detach function tells the operating system to dispose of
any resources allocated to the thread identified by thr when that
thread terminates.

That's new to me. The OS should free all memory allocated by the
thread? Close all files?

Rephrasing what Christian said: allocated *to* the thread, not *by* it.

[...]
The proposed functions return the enum value "thrd_error" if
SOMETHING goes wrong. Impossible to know WHAT did go wrong since
nowhere is specified if errno should have a value set or how
to figure out WHAT HAPPENED!!!

Same for fopen(), isn't it?
There is NO WAY that the running
program can communicate the reasons of failure so that we are
left in the dark as to why each error happens. The Microsoft API
specifies GetLastError() and pthreads have errno and other
mechanisms to further speicify what kind of error happened.

By 7.5p3, any library function - including <threads.h> functions - is
allowed (but not required) to set errno, unless the function's
description says otherwise. I imagine that, if the next edition of
POSIX adopts C1X, it will require that <threads.h> functions set errno
on failure, as it does for <stdio.h> ones. (Incidentally, pthreads
functions generally return errno values directly, rather than set errno.)

To sum this all up: there are defects in the specification, but - IMHO -
by far not serious enough to call it a "catastrophe".

Frankly, I'm more worried about <stdatomic.h>. Just to point out two
most glaring problems:
* What, exactly, are "generic functions"? (Aren't they supposed to be
generic macros?)
* What types the "generic functions" (or macros) are supposed to accept?
All the types mentioned in 7.17.6? Only the direct types? Or perhaps
*all* atomic types, including any _Atomic-qualified struct or union
types? Some of the wording in 7.17.7.5 suggests the latter
interpretation, which can have important consequences for ABIs.
 
I

Ian Collins

On 07/07/2011 6:33 AM, jacob navia wrote:
....

Do you find fopen() absurd and impossible to use too? Or are file or
stream attributes (such as the POSIX permission bits, or O_EXCL) less
important to you than some of the thread attributes that POSIX or
Windows have?

Is really an appropriate analogy? Using fopen or open is an
implementation detail whereas the choice of thread implementation is a
pretty fundamental design decision.

I agree there are similarities. Both filesystem I/O and threading do
require some degree of awareness of the operating environment, but I'd
argue that dependency is stronger with threading.

From a pthreads user's perspective the proposed API is close enough to
pthreads with default options it be usable. Provided implementations
provide a means of mixing native and C1x thread, there shouldn't be many
barriers to their adoption. For example, on Solaris older native
threads are compatible with pthreads, so the two can be mixed in the
same application.
 
J

jacob navia

Le 07/07/11 23:07, Marcin Grzegorczyk a écrit :
To sum this all up: there are defects in the specification, but - IMHO -
by far not serious enough to call it a "catastrophe".

Frankly, I'm more worried about <stdatomic.h>.

I haven't started with that one.


Just to point out two
most glaring problems:
* What, exactly, are "generic functions"? (Aren't they supposed to be
generic macros?)
* What types the "generic functions" (or macros) are supposed to accept?
All the types mentioned in 7.17.6? Only the direct types? Or perhaps
*all* atomic types, including any _Atomic-qualified struct or union
types? Some of the wording in 7.17.7.5 suggests the latter
interpretation, which can have important consequences for ABIs.

In general, I am not at all sure of WHY the C standard must decide this.
Thread libraries are working OK, and POSIX pthreads is widely used.

It would be better that the C standard would scrap all this and add
a line:

"The threads specifications follows the POSIX standard."

Microsoft has implemented it under windows, and some companies
have ported it to windows. Support from the C standard would
be a good thing.

But if they are going to do this, then let's do it right from the
start. Because if the specs are shaky, limited and primitive
nobody will use them and the standard will make a new failure.

That is the main worry behind my post.
 
J

jameskuyper

jacob navia wrote:
....
In general, I am not at all sure of WHY the C standard must decide this.
Thread libraries are working OK, and POSIX pthreads is widely used.

It would be better that the C standard would scrap all this and add
a line:

"The threads specifications follows the POSIX standard."

Microsoft has implemented it under windows, and some companies
have ported it to windows. Support from the C standard would
be a good thing.

It's extremely unlikely to be that simple; the details of what it
means to follow only a part of the POSIX standard need to be
specified. I don't know anything specific about that part of the POSIX
standard, but I would guess that there's a good chance that it cross-
references other parts of the POSIX standard, either explicitly or
implicitly. If so, for each such cross-reference, the C committee
would have to decide whether to add that other section, too, or to add
words indicating how the meaning of that cross-reference should be
modified in the context of the new C standard. But let's assume all
such issues can be dealt with.

The result of such a change to the C standard would be that if there
is any code which relies only upon the current C standard, and that
portion of the POSIX standard, an implementation of C conforming to
the new C standard will be required to translate that code so that it
works in accordance with POSIX specifications, even if that
implementation is running on a Windows platform.

Now, William Ahern cross-posted a message to every group that this
message is posted to, except comp.std.c, in the thread with the
subject "POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows". In it, he
indicated that one of the biggest ways in which the Windows version of
pthreads differs from true POSIX pthreads is that Windows mutexes
cannot be statically initialized. Therefore, implementers of next
version of C on a Windows platform face a challenge: how to make
statically initialized mutexes work as they are required to by POSIX
(and therefore, also by the new version of C), even though they are
not permitted by the Windows version of pthreads.
I'm not very knowledgeable about this area myself, so it's entirely
possible that I've garbled William Ahern's meaning. Any corrections
that might be needed in order for that paragraph to make sense would
be greatly appreciated.

Since you yourself are a C implementer for Windows platforms, would
you care to describe an implementation strategy for dealing with this
challenge?
 
S

sfuerst

jacob navia wrote:

...





It's extremely unlikely to be that simple; the details of what it
means to follow only a part of the POSIX standard need to be
specified. I don't know anything specific about that part of the POSIX
standard, but I would guess that there's a good chance that it cross-
references other parts of the POSIX standard, either explicitly or
implicitly. If so, for each such cross-reference, the C committee
would have to decide whether to add that other section, too, or to add
words indicating how the meaning of that cross-reference should be
modified in the context of the new C standard. But let's assume all
such issues can be dealt with.

The result of such a change to the C standard would be that if there
is any code which relies only upon the current C standard, and that
portion of the POSIX standard, an implementation of C conforming to
the new C standard will be required to translate that code so that it
works in accordance with POSIX specifications, even if that
implementation is running on a Windows platform.

Now, William Ahern cross-posted a message to every group that this
message is posted to, except comp.std.c, in the thread with the
subject "POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows". In it, he
indicated that one of the biggest ways in which the Windows version of
pthreads differs from true POSIX pthreads is that Windows mutexes
cannot be statically initialized. Therefore, implementers of next
version of C on a Windows platform face a challenge: how to make
statically initialized mutexes work as they are required to by POSIX
(and therefore, also by the new version of C), even though they are
not permitted by the Windows version of pthreads.
I'm not very knowledgeable about this area myself, so it's entirely
possible that I've garbled William Ahern's meaning. Any corrections
that might be needed in order for that paragraph to make sense would
be greatly appreciated.

Since you yourself are a C implementer for Windows platforms, would
you care to describe an implementation strategy for dealing with this
challenge?

The simplest mapping of the posix mutex type to windows is the
CRITICAL_SECTION data type. The only difference between the two is
that a posix mutex may have attributes that allow it to be used to
synchronize between processes via a shared memory segment. Since
multiple processes and shared memory go beyond the C standard, it
shouldn't need to worry about them. Those concepts are platform
specific, after all.

Assuming you use a CS as a mutex, then the only nontrivial thing to
have is PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER. Fortunately, recent versions of
Microsoft windows allow static initialization of these via the
definition:
#define PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER {(void*)-1,-1,0,0,0,0}

However, this isn't the end of the story. One can do better by using
the low-level thread synchronization primitives that Microsoft uses to
implement locks and condition variables. Using "keyed events" it is
possible to outperform the standard locking routines Microsoft
provides...

Steven
 
J

James Kuyper

The simplest mapping of the posix mutex type to windows is the
CRITICAL_SECTION data type. The only difference between the two is
that a posix mutex may have attributes that allow it to be used to
synchronize between processes via a shared memory segment.

That's a prime example of the cross-referencing problem I was referring
to: the committee would have to decide either to add a specification for
processes and shared memory, or to add wording beyond what jacob gives
above, modifying whatever it is that the POSIX standard says about such
things within the part that describes pthreads.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,483
Members
44,902
Latest member
Elena68X5

Latest Threads

Top